March 23, shortly after leaving a morning prayer service, Sheik
Ahmen Yassin, founder and “spiritual” guru of the Palestinian
terrorist faction Hamas, was killed by missiles fired from Israeli
helicopters.

Disgust flavored the comments of many European and Middle
Eastern world leaders. Disgust–at the killing of an avowed
terrorist.

Hamas publicly states their zeal to retaliate and assassinate
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (as if their intentions were
ever otherwise) and the somewhat ineptly named “cycle of violence”
is, yet again, prolonged.

In spite of the international dismay, no tears should be shed
throughout the free world for the fate that begat Yassin. It is
true, as some critics lament, he was an elderly (he was 67 years
old and not 80 as some sources have indicated), handicapped (he was
confined to a wheelchair at the age of 11, long before planning any
suicide bombings) and blind. But did these physical setbacks deter
or prevent him from condoning and orchestrating terrorist
attacks?

While Israel’s claim that this death takes place as part of the
greater War on Terror is slightly dubious, the notion that this is
a purely “extrajudicial killing,” as the United Kingdom’s Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw calls it, is absurd. This wasn’t Yassin’s
first run-in with Israeli authority. In 1997, during the days of
the Oslo Peace Accords, Israel released the Sheik, who they held in
custody, for a prisoner exchange upon the contingency that he no
longer participate in or advance any forms of terrorism–a reprieve
that marked the second time Israel released Yassin through a
prisoner exchange after he had already been tried and received a
life sentence for his association with Hamas.

Israel will, eventually and likely soon, withdraw from the Gaza
strip, the Palestinian area they occupy, amidst a deluge of public
consternation. Even Sharon accepts this conciliation as necessary
for peace. Yet, it cannot occur at the behest of terrorist regimes
like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah or any of the like. Whether
the death of Yassin, who served as Hamas’ leader in the Gaza
region, will prove to be effective or counterproductive, Israel
made a clear statement: As they withdraw, it will not be upon the
terms of terrorism.

After yet another recent string of bombings against Israelis, it
becomes more and more apparent how thickly Hamas permeates the Gaza
region and would be poised to take considerable control over the
area, should Israel pull out. This fact even troubles usually
Palestinian-sympathetic Egypt, who has already began to place
peacekeeping troops near its borders, in anticipation. Israel is
not the only nation to fear the precariousness of Hamas. This is
not a group devoted to the mere end of Israeli occupation, but the
elimination of Israel in full.

Terrorists are not–invoking the metaphor used by Bret Stephens
of the Jerusalem Post–weeds. A popular argument subsists that
battling terrorism simply begets more terrorism. While
superficially it may appear that way, terrorists do not multiply
themselves upon destruction and will almost certainly feel the
injurious effects at the death of their leader. And with Hamas’
hatred already great enough to sacrifice young children as suicide
bombers, it remains to be seen how the death of one man could
possibly increase an odium that runs so deep already.

That is not to say Hamas will not retaliate, and Israel surely
knew what the likely response would be.

Uncertainties make the lines of right and wrong ambiguous in the
Israel-Palestine conflict. Critics who rationalize each Palestinian
act of terror with evaluation of the Israeli occupation and the
United States support of Israel skirt the real issue and have
downgraded the reasoning of terrorism from morally robust questions
about right and wrong, to morally neutral questions about mere
cause and effect, e.g., the “cycle of violence.”

This mode of thought often ignores or selectively chooses from
the greater scope of history and instead narrowly dates each act of
hostility to the preceding aggression, related or not. Others
blindly excuse Israel on all counts when it abuses the power
granted by the United Sates.

These contentions of logic and truth make it difficult to find a
meeting of minds; but in the long run, it’s hard to argue with the
fact that no one is worse off without Yassin, except maybe Hamas.
And that’s how it should be.

Robert Seefeldt is a junior studying English and
accounting.